We have talked about the Brewer and Brooks case on many occasions – and a new book, written all about the two cases has just been published.

Written by lawyer Tucker Carrington and Journalist Radley Balko the book explores the actions of Stephen Hayne and Mike West – the prosecutor and forensic dentist involved in this, and countless other cases. A review in Slate by Tim Requarth describes it as “an outrageous tale of scientific fraud. Its commentary on the court system is even more chilling.”

You can read excellent review here and find the book in hard back and kindle versions here.

There is no doubt that the story is compelling – but deeply worrying and speaks to a larger ill within the US judicial system. While many ABFO members have stated that bitemarks are good science, and that West was an outlier, an oddity, the book describes how the legal framework of prosecutorial and judicial failure to correct forensic science means that the departure of West from the forensic scene does little to provide assurance that this disaster could not happen again.

The case clearly outlines the stark truth that wrongful convictions not only hurt those accused, and the victims, but also can cause harm to others as the real perpetrators are free to offend again – as in this case, with terrible consequences. The protagonists therefore leave behind in their wake not only destroyed lives in jail – but innocent victims whose deaths could have been avoided by appropriate investigation, science and law.

These realities are often ignored by advocates for bitemarks, who concentrate on the “good” that the science can do – “we can save children’s lives”. In this case bitemarks were at least partly responsible for a little girls death. Those who stand up for such science, and argue its suitability in court, would do well to think about Christine Jackson.

]]>http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/the-cadaver-king-and-the-country-dentist/feed/0Kunco Case – “Bitemark evidence….entirely incredible”http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/kunco-case-bitemark-evidence-entirely-incredible/
http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/kunco-case-bitemark-evidence-entirely-incredible/#respondFri, 05 Jan 2018 15:44:17 +0000http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/?p=10768Those were the words used by the Penn. Court in describing the bitemark evidence in this long running case. Kunco continues to have the right for post conviction DNA testing (some results have already excluded him) and the bitemark evidence was again reviewed – this time with two ABFO experts weighing in on the case – describing it as poor quality while Dr Tom David shifted his position but maintained that the BM evidence had value.

Further, Appellee has demonstrated that the bite mark evidence, a crucial component of the Commonwealth’s trial evidence, is problematic, if not entirely incredible. During trial in 1991, two expert odontologists testified, to a reasonable degree of dental certainty, that Appellee’s teeth made the bite mark on Seaman’s shoulder. In 2016, however, these same experts submitted affidavits recanting their prior opinions due to groundbreaking changes in ABFO guidelines in March 2016.7 One of these experts, Dr. David, testified before the PCRA court that his opinion changed from identifying Appellee as the biter to not being able to exclude Appellee—and countless other individuals in the open population—as the biter.

You can read the full transcript here below the post – but the result is a great one for those who are sceptical about the science and its application to criminal matters. Kunco – like Prante – may be another individual whose life has been ruined by the testimony of so called experts talking about so called science.

Possibly the next case to be over turned due to faulty, flawed and discredited bitemark evidence. This book was written by the prosecutor in the case and describes the discovery of the evidence years after the murder, the attempts made to identify the biter and the following trial. Very self-congratulatory but the book provides some insight into the early days of bitemark evidence, when there was little scrutiny, and the esteem that the forensic dentists were held in – not only by the investigators but the court and jury.

The book also describes, but fails to recognise, an issue that is now well known – that bitemarks aren’t reliable. There were two odontologists in this case – and their initial views about the likely dental characteristics of the biter were very different – one described an individual with spacing, the other with a crowded mouth.

The paperback version of the book – available from Amazon here – shows the alleged bitemark. Its difficult to believe that anyone today would even call this a bitemark, much less have the willingness to link it to a suspect…..

The Karla Brown case and potential wrongful conviction of John Prante continues. A bitemark assessed in minutes, a bitemark that wasn’t discovered for several years and an odontologist with a chequered past of wrongful convictions (indeed, the individual involved may well now be sued by another victim of his BM analysis).

Here is a forensic file on the case – and in an interesting twist the prosecutor in this case also wrote a book on it, you can see more here.

This case has all the hallmarks of another BM related wrongful conviction and 2018 may be the year that the case gets looked at again, especially given the apparent reasonableness of the prosecutor now in place. This is only one of several cases that is likely to be heard in 2o18 in which BM evidence will be tested and challenged. The year promises to be interesting – and Seattle’s AAFS meeting this year should the issues hotly discussed too.

]]>http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/10759-2/feed/0Innocence Project takes on yet another bitemark casehttp://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/innocence-project-takes-on-yet-another-bitemark-case/
http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/innocence-project-takes-on-yet-another-bitemark-case/#respondMon, 23 Jan 2017 11:50:26 +0000http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/?p=10368The Belleville News has an article and interview with Dana Delger from the NY IP. They have taken the case of the case of John Prante, who was convicted in 1983 of the murder of Karla Brown. You can read the full article here.

The bitemark evidence is described as shoddy and the original court heard from:

Dr. Homer Campbell, a dentist and the chief consultant in forensic dentistry for the State of New Mexico, whose area of research is photographic enhancement and its application to forensic dentistry and forensic pathology in the analysis of injury patterns, testified that, in his opinion, the injuries to the victim’s forehead, nose, and chin were caused by the base and wheels of a television tray stand. He described the human bite as ovoid in shape and stated that in a human bite most frequently only the front six teeth will mark. He said that very frequently a bite mark is “totally overlooked, or it is not recognized as an injury pattern.” In photographs of the victim, the witness identified at least three bite marks overlapping one another. On the basis of the spacing of the defendant’s teeth, which contained a space between each one of the top six front teeth, the witness was of the opinion that the defendant’s teeth were consistent with the victim’s wounds in the area of the right collarbone, photographs of which showed marks made by top front teeth with such spacing between them. The witness described Paul Main’s teeth as severely crowded with no spacing between them at all and expressed the opinion that Paul Main’s teeth could not have caused the injury pattern in question. The witness expressed the further opinion that the teeth of Joe Seitz, a model of whose teeth he had also examined, could not have caused this injury pattern. The witness testified that nothing about the quality of the photographs of the victim concerned him with regard to his opinion that the defendant’s teeth were consistent with the wounds in question. The witness indicated that anyone viewing the body, clad in the buttoned sweater and bound about the neck by the two socks tied together, could not possibly have seen the bite marks on the body because they were covered.

Dr. Lowell Levine, who was qualified as an expert in forensic dentistry, testified that there were two or three human bite marks, some of which were superimposed upon one another, shown in the photographs of the victim. The witness was of the opinion, on the basis of the spacing pattern of the defendant’s upper front teeth, that the defendant’s teeth could have caused the injury pattern in question on the victim’s body and that the teeth of Paul Main and Joe Seitz could not.

Dr. Ronald Mullen, the defendant’s dentist, testified that the defendant’s dental impressions reveal multiple spaces, called diastemata, in the upper front teeth. The witness stated that he has practiced as a dentist for 17 years and has treated 6,000 to 7,000 patients; he estimated that spacing between all six upper front teeth occurred in less than 1% of his patients. On cross-examination he estimated that he had seen such spacing “less than fifteen” times.

This case concerns a Tom David case – Kunco – which has long been recognised as an issue case that was bound to come around to appeal. A UV photograph (remind you of Mike West? Indeed Tom David said he received training from Mike West) and an injury that is barely visible let alone recognisable as being caused by teeth….

Increasing scientific skepticism of bite-mark analysis, including a shift within the organization that accredits dentists to testify about bite marks in court, warrants a new trial for an Allegheny County man convicted of raping and torturing a New Kensington woman 25 years ago, his lawyers argued Monday.

John Kunco, 51, formerly of Harrison, had been convicted in 1991 based in part on a partially healed bite mark. Two forensic dentists said it matched his distinctive set of teeth. He is serving a 90-year sentence at the State Correctional Institution in Fayette County, and his previous appeal for post-conviction relief was denied in 2009.

But attorneys for the New York-based Innocence Project argued Monday that more scientific organizations questioning the validity of bite-mark analysis, including the American Board of Forensic Odontologists, meant that Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge Christopher Feliciani should exonerate Kunco or grant him a new trial.

“Knowing now what we did not know then, that bite mark could not be attributed to Mr. Kunco,” said defense attorney Karen Thompson.

The American Board of Forensic Odontologists, which certifies dentists as experts in identifying remains based on teeth, analyzing bite marks and comparing them to potential suspects’ teeth, changed its guidelines in March to say that its members could no longer conclude a bite mark came from a certain individual or probably came from that person. Dentists could only say whether or not they could exclude a suspect, if they could make any conclusion at all.

“Staying within the guidelines, my opinion would have to be different,” said dentist Thomas David of Marietta, Ga., one of two dentists who testified at the trial that Kunco had bitten the 55-year-old victim.

“I can conclude whatever I want, but to stay within the guidelines, I can only say, ‘He can’t be excluded,’ ” David said. “I was confident in my opinions at the time, but it was up to the jury to decide. … I don’t know how much weight the jury gave it.”

Dentists who ignore the board’s guidelines and continue to make individual identifications of bite marks could be subject to ethics complaints, he said.

The board’s change on bite-mark analysis had to overcome years of resistance and a change in leadership toward more skeptical members, board member Cynthia Brzozowski said .

“I viewed my participation (in Monday’s hearing) as my ethical duty,” Brzozowski said. “I’d become discouraged with each wrongful conviction that went unaddressed, with each study that was dismissed.”

Defense attorneys for Paul Aaron Ross say there is no valid science linking a bite mark to a specific person, so when Ross’ murder case comes up for a retrial in Blair County court, that evidence should be excluded.

At a minimum, there should be a Frye hearing where scientists, forensic dentists and other experts can be brought to testify against its admission, attorney Dana M. Delger said Friday.

Delger, an attorney with the Innocence Project Inc. of New York City, a national litigation firm with a history of challenging bite mark evidence in criminal cases, is working with Altoona attorneys Thomas M. Dickey and Thomas Hooper on behalf of the Hollidaysburg-area man facing a second trial.

Ross’ 2005 conviction in the murder of 26-year-old Tina S. Miller of Hollidaysburg was overturned on appeal, with the state Superior Court in October 2012 ordering a new trial.

In court documents filed earlier this year, Dickey asked Judge Jolene G. Kopriva to exclude bite mark evidence from the retrial, which led to Friday’s court hearing before her.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has become the latest organization to identify bite mark evidence as profoundly unreliable, joining the National Academy of Sciences, the Texas Forensic Science Commission and other academic researchers and scientists, Delger said.

The Texas commission’s April 2016 report recommends that bite mark comparison evidence “not be admitted” in criminal cases in Texas until development of additional criteria.

The research finding fault with bite mark evidence, Delger said, has been done by those interested in the validity of the science and not the outcome of a specific court case.

“Now that we know there are problems, the question is … What do we do in the future?” she said. “We can’t pretend (bite mark evidence) is still reliable.”

Dr. Dennis Asen, an Allentown orthodontist, told the jury that Ross’ dental impression was “very highly consistent” with that mark.

Asen also told the jury that based on his examination of the bite mark, it could not have been made by any one of the four additional people Miller was with on the night she died.

]]>http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/bite-mark-evidence-challenged-in-paul-alan-ross-case/feed/0Long list of distinguished authors state bitemarks should not be usedhttp://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/large-list-of-distinguished-authors-state-bitemarks-should-not-be-used/
http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/large-list-of-distinguished-authors-state-bitemarks-should-not-be-used/#respondSat, 03 Dec 2016 16:54:38 +0000http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/?p=10295I think that its safe to say that 2017 may well be the last year that bitemarks are allowed in criminal trials in the United States. With over four cases currently going through the courts as either Frye/Daubert hearings or full appeals – each of which features a bitemark (apparently) handled badly by ABFO diplomates. The ABFO is divided more than ever – with some still hanging on desperately to the concept that BMs are safe, versus the more enlightened (or non flat earthers). Both are appearing in Courts at present.

The paper’s abstract, which is not quiet as long as the list of authors!; states:

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony.

The California SupremeCourt has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification—highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications—highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law’s difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.

The paper is open source and you can download a copy here and read the article:

]]>http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/large-list-of-distinguished-authors-state-bitemarks-should-not-be-used/feed/0UK Supreme Court recommends Jury Primershttp://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/uk-supreme-court-recommends-jury-primers/
http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/uk-supreme-court-recommends-jury-primers/#respondSat, 05 Mar 2016 12:01:50 +0000http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/?p=9959The head of the UK Supreme Court has recommended Jury primers for forensic science in a piece called “Stop needless dispute of science in the courts” published in Nature this week.

We have described the use of the Jury primers before – they present a means of showing the trier of fact the scope, and limitations of a science. This helps jurys and keeps forensic scientists within the bounds of the science and, as Lord Neuberger states, prevents needless argument and discussion of matters that cannot really be challenged.

There are currently no formally approved Jury Primers and it would be helpful to design a protocol that enables such documents to be delivered in a standardised manner – avoiding subjectivity and personal views on the value of certain aspects of science.

In many ways the procedure would not be that different from the methods adopted by the Texas Forensic Science Commission in its assessment of hair and bitemark analysis. Indeed, the final report the TFSC into bitemarks may well be an embryonic primer – they have assessed the evidence and made a case for those elements that can , and cannot, be supported.

It will be interesting to see if the primer idea catches on – either in the UK or the US.

]]>http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/uk-supreme-court-recommends-jury-primers/feed/0Video from Texas Committeehttp://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/video-from-texas-commitee/
http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/video-from-texas-commitee/#respondFri, 04 Mar 2016 17:04:57 +0000http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/?p=9953This is the video that just been released showing the landmark committee decision to recommend banning bitemark evidence in Texas Courts.

The video starts at the point that the committee begins the presentation by lead Counsel, Lynn Garcia, on the findings of the sub committee – and then you can watch the entire presentation and conclusions.